On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 4:41 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 03 2022, René Scharfe wrote: > > Am 03.12.22 um 13:53 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: > >> On Sat, Dec 03 2022, René Scharfe wrote: > >>> Am 03.12.22 um 06:09 schrieb Eric Sunshine: > >>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:51 AM René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> - cat >.crlf-orig-$branch.txt && > >>>>> - cat .crlf-orig-$branch.txt | append_cr >.crlf-message-$branch.txt && > >>>>> + tee .crlf-orig-$branch.txt | append_cr >.crlf-message-$branch.txt && > >>>> > >>>> This feels slightly magical and more difficult to reason about than > >>>> using simple redirection to eliminate the second `cat`. Wouldn't this > >>>> work just as well? > >>>> > >>>> cat >.crlf-orig-$branch.txt && > >>>> append_cr <.crlf-orig-$branch.txt >.crlf-message-$branch.txt && > >>> > >>> It would work, of course, but this is the exact use case for tee(1). No > >>> repetition, no extra redirection symbols, just an nicely fitting piece > >>> of pipework. Don't fear the tee! ;-) > >> > >> I don't really care, but I must say I agree with Eric here. Not having > >> surprising patterns in the test suite has a value of its own. > > > > That's a good general guideline, but I wouldn't have expected a pipe > > with three holes to startle anyone. *shrug* > > It's more that you're used to seeing one thing, the "cat >in" at the > start of a function is a common pattern. > > Then it takes some time to stop and grok an a new pattern. If I was > hacking on a function like that I'd probably stop to try to understand > "why", even though I understood the "what". > > I'm not saying it's not worth it in this case, just pointing out that > boring "standard" patterns have a value of their own in us collectively > understanding them, which has a value of its own. Whether optimizing a > test case outweighs that is another matter (sometimes it would). Perhaps my experience is atypical, but in decades of using Unix, my use of `tee` can (probably) be counted on a single finger, so the patch, as implemented, did have higher cognitive load for me than a patch using simple redirection would have had. Anyhow, I mentioned the redirection approach, not to ask for a change, but only in case you had overlooked the (to me) simpler approach. I didn't expect it to spark so much discussion (though I do agree with everything Ævar has said about following established patterns). That said, I'm still rather unclear on the purpose of this patch. In a sense, it feels like mere churn for 1/100 of a second gain (assuming I'm reading the `hyperfine` output correctly).
